Why should drafting get more accurate every year? I think it is much more difficult than you are allowing. It will never be an exact science.

The Eagles and Pats have done well, but where is the evidence that they are doing anything differently than anyone else? It seems to me they are using the same methods, only with more efficiency and success. Also, don't forget that they have drafted guys like Broderick Bunkley, Jerome McDougle, and Chad Jackson who haven't panned out, so it's not like they don't make mistakes either.

But a majority of the opinions available to scouts today--close to all, are bad, IMO. Scouting directors and scouts get fired all the time because they are making mistakes. But if they guys that replace them are making the same mistakes, that's not an improvement now is it?

Just because a scout is a "bad" scout, doesn't mean he is incapable of supporting a really good prospect or anything. Just that he isn't using good reasoning, so if he lands a good prospect with shoddy reasoning, he's more likely to be convinced that his reasoning was good. If he supports a poor prospect under the same methodology, he's already seen his system "work" so he's unwilling to change his behaviors. It's a psychological bias.

Yeah but you are not understanding my logic.

If you demand change or other scouts, you will get them. You are saying they have no other options, but money makes the world turn. That will make them find other scouts who are willing to change or are better.

OR, if they demand for better stuff is high, the scouts will change to improve themselves. The GMs just have to hold the scouts to high standards. And if the scouts are failing like you say so, they would. And therefore my logic would follow as stated above.

Again I dont think I am absolutely correct, but i am just basing this on economics. Also I think you are correct in many aspects, and I consider you one of the best posters on this site Gtripp, so because I am critical dont take it the wrong way.

Just because a scout is a "bad" scout, doesn't mean he is incapable of supporting a really good prospect or anything. Just that he isn't using good reasoning, so if he lands a good prospect with shoddy reasoning, he's more likely to be convinced that his reasoning was good. If he supports a poor prospect under the same methodology, he's already seen his system "work" so he's unwilling to change his behaviors. It's a psychological bias.

For example, Scout A believes that SEC Quarterbacks are better prepared for the NFL than any other conference. Scout A also believes that the Pac 10 is a horrible QB conference. In 1998, Scout A decided that Manning would be a better QB than Leaf based on his conference perception. Low and behold, Leaf busts, and Manning becomes one of, if not the greatest ever to play. Scout A's perceptions of conference are reinforced. In 2003, Scout A decides that Rex Grossman will certainly be a better prospect than Kyle Boller because of conference exp. While Grossman was a little underwhelming, Bollers complete inepititude convinces Scout A that he is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt with his theory.

So now you have another SEC QB in Russell and Quinn and non conference QB. Scout A already knows who the better prospect is, but now he can convince collegues he is right by reminding them of past history and Russell's big arm.

Hoo, this happens all the time. Scout A is not correct in his conference analysis because Scout A doesn't understand the value of a sample size. But he would argue to the death that he his right. Scout A has "ten years" of experience, but he hasn't been doing his job right, he's just been coincidentally lucky.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Why should drafting get more accurate every year? I think it is much more difficult than you are allowing. It will never be an exact science.

The Eagles and Pats have done well, but where is the evidence that they are doing anything differently than anyone else? It seems to me they are using the same methods, only with more efficiency and success. Also, don't forget that they have drafted guys like Broderick Bunkley, Jerome McDougle, and Chad Jackson who haven't panned out, so it's not like they don't make mistakes either.

Because Scouts SHOULD be learning from their mistakes. Once you have more years of information, it should become gradually easier and easier to identify what makes a bust a bust. But scouts don't investigate this.

McDougal was a mistake. Because of McDougal, Eagles scouts, in theory at least, have become more attune to why he busted and will avoid prospects with similar flaws.

You can't grade anything off a guy's rookie year so we don't know if Bunkley or Jackson was a good pick yet. But don't lump them together. Jackson was a 2nd rounder, his expectation as a player should not be the same as Bunkley's.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Hoo, this happens all the time. Scout A is not correct in his conference analysis because Scout A doesn't understand the value of a sample size. But he would argue to the death that he his right. Scout A has "ten years" of experience, but he hasn't been doing his job right, he's just been coincidentally lucky.

Ok the only problem with your theory is that is not falsifiable. You cant prove it wrong or argue against it. His way of prediction could be right, based on the assumption that prediction is not always an exact science. But what you are saying cant be argued against. Basically anyone can claim an argument like that, it is called a 3rd degree of power in politics.

It is when you claim that a what a person feels is correct, is wrong because they dont know what is right and wrong.

It is an interesting claim, but you cant argue against it. And if you cant argue agaisnt a theory, that means it is a bad one. I mean I am done tons of research on theories and arguments and I could link you up with an article about good theories and bad ones, and what are the factors needed for a good one. Falsifiability is an important factor.

You are Basically saying the advice a scout gives, is based on wrong ideas, but randomly gets lucky at times.

If you demand change or other scouts, you will get them. You are saying they have no other options, but money makes the world turn. That will make them find other scouts who are willing to change or are better.

OR, if they demand for better stuff is high, the scouts will change to improve themselves. The GMs just have to hold the scouts to high standards. And if the scouts are failing like you say so, they would. And therefore my logic would follow as stated above.

Again I dont think I am absolutely correct, but i am just basing this on economics. Also I think you are correct in many aspects, and I consider you one of the best posters on this site Gtripp, so because I am critical dont take it the wrong way.

I value critism highly. It makes me a better person. I am highly respective of critism to my theories as long as its done in a civil manner, just like this. I thank you for being patient as I try to best explain some seemingly outlandish suggestions.

I am saying the market for "good" scouts is so small that it isn't on the radar of many GMs. The culture is going to be really, really difficult to change until some "good" scouts start having a lot of success, then the rest of the league will go copycat on them.

I think GM's accross the league are getting restless with scouts. So there is a lot of scouting turnover in NFL organizations. This also leads to decreased loyalty, which is an issue. I think you are 100% with the demanding of other scouts, but this is a lot like how the Warpath demands a GM for the Redskins. A majority of GM's out there just rely on scouts for their info. Some are just glorified "bad" scouts themselves. So while we can change who's in charge, its going to stay bad unless they know what they are doing. Same with scouts. It's going to stay bad until a "good" scout/GM has success, and his methodologies are discovered and copied.

Some scouts will try to improve themselves, but they can't do so until they realize that everything they learned before is wrong. And this is a tough realization. Essentially, while they have a deep scouting background, they know nothing more about successful scouting than you or I. So even if they realize this and start to change themselves, they are still in danger of getting fired.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Ok the only problem with your theory is that is not falsifiable. You cant prove it wrong or argue against it. His way of prediction could be right, based on the assumption that prediction is not always an exact science. But what you are saying cant be argued against. Basically anyone can claim an argument like that, it is called a 3rd degree of power in politics.

It is when you claim that a what a person feels is correct, is wrong because they dont know what is right and wrong.

It is an interesting claim, but you cant argue against it. And if you cant argue agaisnt a theory, that means it is a bad one. I mean I am done tons of research on theories and arguments and I could link you up with an article about good theories and bad ones, and what are the factors needed for a good one. Falsifiability is an important factor.

You are Basically saying the advice a scout gives, is based on wrong ideas, but randomly gets lucky at times.

Duely noted. I realize the burden of proof is on me and my elaborate challenge to the system. But I would argue that the current climate of accepted failure in scouting is proof enough that something, if not everything, is amiss. Busts become acceptable. And I don't have all the answers for non QB positions. But I also am not (yet) a scout. I feel that every year, I will learn something more about the NFL and how I can improve my own scouting techiques. I think QBs are easy to do mathematically, but because of the lack of stats on other positions, they will be a lot harder.

And yes, I am saying "the advice a scout gives is based on a bunch of incorrect and unfounded perceptions, but randomly gets lucky at times". This is my claim, 100% accurate.

Can I ever prove this? Maybe not. But to me, there is a huge culture of scouting thats got it wrong, and I would have no problem using my personal career to go into the field of scouting and test my theory if I can.

If I'm right, I achieve unmitigated success on the highest level of sport building. If I'm wrong, I'm pretty much out of a job in my mid 30s, and have to start over from that point.

I'm that confident in it.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Duely noted. I realize the burden of proof is on me and my elaborate challenge to the system. But I would argue that the current climate of accepted failure in scouting is proof enough that something, if not everything, is amiss. Busts become acceptable. And I don't have all the answers for non QB positions. But I also am not (yet) a scout. I feel that every year, I will learn something more about the NFL and how I can improve my own scouting techiques. I think QBs are easy to do mathematically, but because of the lack of stats on other positions, they will be a lot harder.

And yes, I am saying "the advice a scout gives is based on a bunch of incorrect and unfounded perceptions, but randomly gets lucky at times". This is my claim, 100% accurate.

Can I ever prove this? Maybe not. But to me, there is a huge culture of scouting thats got it wrong, and I would have no problem using my personal career to go into the field of scouting and test my theory if I can.

I'm that confident in it.

Well I am not saying you are wrong, you may be right. I just have my reservations in accepting theories blindly. I was just pointing out my issues with your theory.

And just because it may be impossible to prove, does not mean it is wrong. I would say keep it up, and update your theory. Don't be hypocritical and assume your theory is always or 100% correct. That would be a bit ironic, because you are arguing that scouts do the same thing.

This is a pretty solid argument. Let me explain the other part of my theory.

The guys you mentioned (exception to Leftwich who started 36 games, a pretty solid number) were ALL late round picks. These guys have proven that it is possible to have the mental capacity to buck the experience trend. And I expect Russell to have the exact same oppertunity to buck the trened as these guys did. There are always exceptions to every rule.

But for every Brady, Hasselbeck, and Brad Johnson, late round picks who were good prospects, do you have any idea how many late round picks had no talent whatsoever? I'd say the ratio for late round picks is like, 20:1.

So the experience equation is not perfect. Every prospect has his chance to buck the trend. But JaMarcus Russell is no more likely to become an elite passer than Cullen Finnerty (4 year starter at DII GVSU--led all D2 QBs in passing efficiency) is. Russell is FAR, far, far, far more likely to be at least as good as Rex Grossman is though. That's the statistical expectation for Russell. 95% chance that he will play somewhere in Grossman's vincinity. And that's not terrible (the Bears did get to a SB with that quality of player at QB), but its a terrible use of a top five pick.

So yes, I should probably, for sake of not sounding like a know-it-all prick, stop talking about Russell as an absolute certainty to be below average. Nothing is ever certain. I can just say, with a lot of confidence, that he will not be an elite player among the best QBs in the league. And if all stats can give me is a lot of confidence in a prediction, I'll take the 5% chance of error any day.

Personally I wouldn't take Russell or Quinn number one. You can get productive QB's in rounds 3-6. Especially if I were Oak, Det or Clev. Clev already has two young guys in D. Anderson and C. Frye. Although I think Frye isn't really that good. But Anderson can really play. So can John Kitna. Oak should make a trade, or get him if he is cut for D. Culpepper and bring in a solid vet to back him up if he's not ready. Or stick with Walter. All I know was Walter was a STUD in college. Now, I'm not sure if he sucks, or he has no help. All of these teams need some O-linemen in the worst way.

Here is an interesting thing I heard on NFL Network. It was said at the combine that Chris Leak threw the best ball out of all the QB's. Plus he started all 4 years at Fla. Now if Chris Leak were 6'3 or 6'4 instead of 5'11 or 6'0 would he go in the 1st round? What about Troy Smith? Has everyone just all of a sudden gave up on this kid? Wasn't he one of the best qb's in the country, if not the best? What about Kevin Kolb out of Houston? He started all 4 years too. My point is some of these later round guys can really play if they are ever given the chance that Russell and Quinn are going to get. If you judge what they did on the field you could argue that they are just as good as Russelll and Quinn. Some didn't throw the ball as much as say Quinn did, but if they were given that same chance I would argue that they would have put up similar passing numbers that Quinn did.

Personally I wouldn't take Russell or Quinn number one. You can get productive QB's in rounds 3-6. Especially if I were Oak, Det or Clev. Clev already has two young guys in D. Anderson and C. Frye. Although I think Frye isn't really that good. But Anderson can really play. So can John Kitna. Oak should make a trade, or get him if he is cut for D. Culpepper and bring in a solid vet to back him up if he's not ready. Or stick with Walter. All I know was Walter was a STUD in college. Now, I'm not sure if he sucks, or he has no help. All of these teams need some O-linemen in the worst way.

Here is an interesting thing I heard on NFL Network. It was said at the combine that Chris Leak threw the best ball out of all the QB's. Plus he started all 4 years at Fla. Now if Chris Leak were 6'3 or 6'4 instead of 5'11 or 6'0 would he go in the 1st round? What about Troy Smith? Has everyone just all of a sudden gave up on this kid? Wasn't he one of the best qb's in the country, if not the best? What about Kevin Kolb out of Houston? He started all 4 years too. My point is some of these later round guys can really play if they are ever given the chance that Russell and Quinn are going to get. If you judge what they did on the field you could argue that they are just as good as Russelll and Quinn. Some didn't throw the ball as much as say Quinn did, but if they were given that same chance I would argue that they would have put up similar passing numbers that Quinn did.

IMO, taking QBs in round 3-6 is a bad strategy because its a total crapshoot. The guy you get probably isn't good and knowing this, theres never really a good time to give a guy significant playing time.

One of the trickiest things about the QB projection system is that it starts to lose its accuracy beyond round 2. So while guys like Leak have numbers that look a lot like Quinn's, they still don't project very well historically due solely to their draft status. In this case, the best explaination is the scouts generally do a pretty good job at seeing which guys can't play. I mean the Brady's of the world seem to slip through the cracks, but generally a 6th round projected guy probably can't play at the NFL level.

Most guys (at QB) can't play. That should be the assumption, as opposed to the other way around. There will probably be a 6th round gem, but I'm not sure theres a good predictive system right now.

If Leak was a 6' 4" guy, would he have a 1st round projection? I don't know. If he was 6' 4" would he be a lot more likely to succeed? I mean, a lot of the stuff I believe says I should answer no to this question, but maybe height does correlate to NFL success given other conditions. Has there been a successful passer under 6 feet at the NFL level? No. Is it impossible to have success and be short? I don't see why it would be.

I don't have all the answers, nor do I claim to. I know a very select few things when it comes to the NFL (like Quinn>Russell with 95% accuracy). Maybe lack of height correlates to NFL failure. But then again, short guys don't often get drafted high, so I fear this could be a weak study.

It's certainly a question worth asking though.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Because Scouts SHOULD be learning from their mistakes. Once you have more years of information, it should become gradually easier and easier to identify what makes a bust a bust. But scouts don't investigate this.

McDougal was a mistake. Because of McDougal, Eagles scouts, in theory at least, have become more attune to why he busted and will avoid prospects with similar flaws.

You can't grade anything off a guy's rookie year so we don't know if Bunkley or Jackson was a good pick yet. But don't lump them together. Jackson was a 2nd rounder, his expectation as a player should not be the same as Bunkley's.

Well we have your top 10 Gtripp and we have you down as saying Quinn should be the guy, against all popular consensus. So all we can do is wait and see. I have my own opinions but I am not secure enough in them to indict and entire professional caste. So if Quinn turns out to be a better pro than Russell, I will admit you were right, even if all those 70 year old hacks probably won't in turn.

By the way, put me down for bust on Quinn. You can hold me to that too.

My only argument would be that Russell had a better QB rating in college than Quinn. That is probably what the scouts are looking at. If you asked my opinion then I think that Quinn is more experienced than Russell. I am no Pshchic though so only time will tell who is truely better.

Well I am not saying you are wrong, you may be right. I just have my reservations in accepting theories blindly. I was just pointing out my issues with your theory.

And just because it may be impossible to prove, does not mean it is wrong. I would say keep it up, and update your theory. Don't be hypocritical and assume your theory is always or 100% correct. That would be a bit ironic, because you are arguing that scouts do the same thing.

I think my arguement can be falsified and it can be done by proving that the accuracy of scouting has reached its apex and can't make anymore significant gains.

I, in turn, could support my argument by suggesting possible ways to improve scouting (which I have done), and then proving that these ways work better (which has yet to be done).

I'm just trying to show that the logical approach would seem like scouting could be bettered. That doesn't make me right or wrong, it just gives an alternative hypothesis to the way things are being done.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

The bottom line (to this point) is the fact that being a very long way from having a bust free draft due to a near perfect ordering of the prospects is not an excuse to not improve the way we do things.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

No way in hell would I would take Brady Quinn number one, or number two for that matter. I think he is 2nd round talent When I look at him as an overall QB, I don't see Peyton Manning, I don't see Carson Palmer, I don't see Tom Brady and I don't see Troy Aikman. I see an average to above average starting NFL QB. No more no less. I think many of the guys like Leak, Smith,Kolb and Drew Stanton could be just is good as Brady Quinn if they played in the same offense that he did. And that's no knocking Quinn cause all those guys are very good college QB's.

I could see Russell being as good as McNabb, which is really really good and a chance to be great. His arm is the best I've seen in a long long time. And that is why he is going to go #1. People see his overall potential.

But I will be the first to admit I'm not draft expert. All we can do is wait it out and see. Let's review this thread a year from now.